Merlin TSM comparisons

OK, but not meeting listener expectations does not mean the fundamental design of the speaker is flawed, only that the buyer chose the wrong speaker.

I've heard magico mini but never Merlin.

Even the mini's sounded "thin" to me on an absolute scale, despite being one of the best speakers I have heard in most every other regard.

I've heard higher end Totem monitors in the past as well and they were also quite good as has been similar Dynaudio (not thin).


I have some pretty good Triangle monitors ($500 new) also. These are thinner than 5X as expensive Dynaudio at higher volumes, but competitive with most anything at low volumes.

Not sure what thin means. Is this related to frequency balance, or image density? In the latter case, tubes are not "thin", SS...

Hard to define thin objectively really.

The opposite to a thin sound is one with weight, authority and power behind it, like a big band or symphony orchestra playing full throttle, or even feeling the weight of the synthesized bass in a BEP tunes in your gut beyond just hearing it. For me, much of the weight comes from the low end where a lot of the power in music occurs.

Ok, so you mean no bottom heft. It seems like the great speakers always have a mid-band and highs in balance with their bass output, however deep that bass might be. One thing Bobby gets right as that balance,which is why both the TSMs and VSMs, with considerably different bass outputs sound so natural, and never thinned out, which seems to be a problem of balance and not actual bass depth, and why I agree that a subwoofer, while it might help, is a difficult thing to pull-off well, when it is not part of the overall design of the speaker - but I guess it can be done, just not easy.

"a subwoofer, while it might help, is a difficult thing to pull-off well, when it is not part of the overall design of the speaker"

True, its up to you and not the speaker designer to pull it off, which is a BIG difference. You just have to trust your ears.